- Email: [email protected]
Interrupting the discourse on interruptions
Journal of Pragmati:s i4 (1990) 883-903 North-Holland
883
INTERRUPTING THE DISCOURSE ON INTERRUPTIONS
AIt~ Analysis in Terms of Relationaliy Neutral, Power- and Rapport-Oriented .~,t:ts
Julia A. GOLDBERG*
Received March 1988; revised version January t989
Analysts interested in the social significance of conversational behavior have traditionally treated interruptions as reliable, objective indicators of the interlocutors' power, control or dominance. The relational significance interruptions have for the participants themselves, however, was rarely considered. Recently, researchers have become increasingly aware that interruptions are not and need not be synonymous with power. This paper attempts to differentiate between power and non-power interruptions. It provides a means for assessing the 'meaning' of each interruption as a display of relational power or rapport, or as a non-relational display of 'neutrality'.
1. Introduction Interruptions have traditionally been viewed as reliable and objective indicators of such personal and relational attributes as domineeringness and dominance. The assumption that one could measure power in this way has been fostered by context- and content-free analyses of conversational data. Once one considers the content and context, the interruption-power correlation begins to break down. While some interruptions may indeed be power displays, the researcher cannot assume that all are. Some are rapport displays; still others have pothir, g to do with personal or relational displays of this sort at all. The que:;tion is, which interruptions are which? By what criteria are interruptions hearable as power, rapport, or 'neutral' acts? This question is addressed in section 3 of this paper. However, before presenting the categorization schema, it is beneficial to reconsider the underlying assumptions which lead to the equating of interruptions with power in the first place as well as the research casting doubt on its validity. It is the contention of this author that once one replaces the misl,~ading assumption * Author's address: J.A. Goldberg, Dept. of Communication, P.O. Box 3341, University Station, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82071, USA. 0378-2166/90/$03.50 © 1990 - - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)
884
Y.,4. Goldberg / hlterrupting the discourse
regarding the centrality and sanctity of the siagnlar speakership code, it is possible to provide a unified explanation of the occurrence and 'meaning' of interruptions.
2. Interruptions: A review
2.1. A review of the literature
One's right to a turn is considered to be sacrosanct such that during multiparty encounters, one and only one person may appropriately speak at any given time (Duncan (1972), Sacks et al. (1974)). It is this speakership code which is lauded as the underlying, basic code around which all interaction is said to be organized and fzom which it derives its meaning. While some states of overlap do not challenge the speaker's right to complete his/her turn, an interruption's Drim~,,'v function, it is ,q~;,,~,~ ;~ ,-. do just that: to gain immediate control of the discourse - of the turn and/or topic - by pressuring the speaker to relinquish his/her control. Whether successful or not, it is the imputation of volitional intent ~ - intent to disrupt, to take over the turnspac¢ occupied by another, and to generally interfere with the projected form, content, and/or 'ownership' of what is said - which leads to the assumption that interruptions are interactional strategies for exerting and overtly displaying power or control over both the discourse and its participants (Orcutt apd Harvey (1985), also see Arndt (n.d.), Farina (1960), Hetherington et al. (1971), Jacob (1974, 1975), Kollock et al. (1985" 34), Leffler et al. (1980), Meltzer et al. (1971), Mishler and Waxier (1968), Riskin and Fuance (1972), West (1979)). 2 Concomitantly, on the assumption that interruptions violate the other's svakership rights, interruptions tend to be viewed as rude and disrespectful 1 The analytical distinction between 'false starts' and 'interruptions' attests to the interruption's volitional nature. False starts are potential interruptions with the difference that the initiated turn is dropped or terminated immediately - at or before the 'initial drop point' (Jefferson and Schegioff (1975)) - while ~aterruptions continue beyond this drop point. The initiator of the false start is said to recognize his/her timing error and repairs it while the initiator of the interruption (attempts to) build off it to his/her advantage. -' This is a "process' view of power. The person who talks the most, interrupts the most, changes or introduces topics the most, and who 'challenges" (uses 'one-up' moves) the most is seen as more powerful. (See relational communication coding schemes such as Millar and Rogers (1980).) There is a criticai difference between interr:~qions which are successful and those which are not which is often o~'er--iooked or treated as strategically equivalent. Nevertheless, there is a very real distinction be',weer.,, the use of interruptions as a strategy for testing or assessing one's power (etc.) in a relationship and _~nterruptions as a strategy for displaying or exercising one's power. The former recognizes the inte,~,ruptor's negotiation or competition for supremacy (i.e., need to look at who 'wins') while the latter simply assumes the interruptor'~ supremacy irrespective of his/her success rate. (Consider Na~a!e et al. (1979).)
J.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
885
acts: indicative of indifference, aggressiveness or hostility towards the victimized speaker and/or the issues, values, and perspectives embodied within what was being said (West (1979)). The validity of this position is contestable. A number of studies suggest that the correlation of interruptions wire power, control, and/or dominance is weaker than tacitly presumed (Aleguire (1978), Beattie (1981, 1982), Bennett (1981), Dindia (1987), Ferguson (1977), Folger and Sillars (1978), French and Loca]~ (1983), Kennedy and Camden (1983), Millar and Rogers (1980: 25-26, note 5), Murray (1987), Tannen (198 l a), Wilmot et al. (1982)). Some ~nterruptions may convey one's rapport, cooperation, or camaraderie with the interrupted speaker. These interruptions appear to be triggered by the interruptor's enthusiastic interest and active involvement in the discourse (Agrawal (1976), Aleguire (1978), Bennett (1981), Edelsky (1981), Ervin-Tripp (1979), Gallois and Markel (1975~ 1139), Houtkoop and Mazeland (1985), Kennedy and Camden (1983), Tannen (1981a)). Still other studies suggest that some interruptions arise as a direct consequence of the interactants' respective participatory rights and obligations (see Agrawal (1976: 68), Bennett (1981), Edelsky (1981), Murray (1985)). As such, these interruptions reveal precious little about the interruptor's personality or interactional demeanor. Studies by both Gallois and Markel (1975) and Rim (1977) found that not only does interruption frequency vary with respect to the conversation's pha~c but so does its significance or 'meaning'. Likewise, Natale et al. (1979: 874) and Murray (1985) suggest that the occurrence of an interruption may have more to do with the amount of time the other has been talking than with the interruptor's personality. Since interruptions arise from a multitude of personal, relational and conversational sources, to claim that interruptions are all occasioned by an individual's need to dominate or control is patently incorrect. Similarly, any attempt to assign personal and/or relational at:ributes to indivi:]l~als on the basis of an undifferentiated percentage-of-total i n t e ~ p t ~ ~co;~ is untenable, a Given the multifunctional nature of interrupt!on~, ~,~ -'~ dyst must be able to distinguish between those interruptions seemin~!y ~.:,tivated by the interactional rights and obligations of the moment, and those seemingly produced to satisfy personal or interactionai wants or needs. This paper attempts to explicate some of the criteria by which it may be possible to differentiate between power and non-power interruptiens. a Dominance/power scores are frequently computed and assigned to an interactant based on the proportion of interruptions initiated by that person out of the total number of interruptions found within the exchange. As the individual's percentile score increases so too does the 'strength' of his/ her personality type or relational style. However, Millar and Rogers (1980: 13-14) caution that while domineeringness is posiiively correlated with an interactant's total number of interruptions (i.e., 'talkovers'), dominance is not.
886
J.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
2.2. Interruptions and the speakership code As noted, the equating of interruptions with power displays is based on the contention that an individual can easily avoid the initiation of his/her turn before the completion of the other's in-progress turn (Orcutt and Harvey (1985)). Of course, while it is to some extent true that interruptions can be avoided, to do so - to remain stoically, patiently, or even anxiously silent until the end of the other's turn - may have adverse social and/or interactional effects. Issues requiring immediate attention, as well as issues demanding immediate juxtaposition in order to be 'meaningful', let alone coherent, need to be said and said as soon as possible. From this perspective, to wait 'one's turn' may be too late. Rather than treat interruptions as unilateral violations of the speakership code, the research suggests that the speaker's right to an unimpeded turn and the listei-.,-,"s obligation to ensuce this right is not the only code around which conversation ~s principally organized (see Butterworth (1975), Edelsky (1981), Thomas (1985)). Instead, it appears that conversationalists make turn-taking decisions based upon tkeir own and other's rights, obligations, and wants (Houtkoop and Mazeland (1985), Murray (1985, 1987)). The satisfaction of one right, obligation, and/or want may lead to the violation of others. For example, if, as a show of respect for the speaker, a listener waives his/her fights to receive an intelligible utterance from that speaker, the listener may be unable to provide an appropriate response. And, since an inappropriate response (including that of silence) may be interpreted as a face-threatening act, the listener may end up not only violating the speaker's wants (and his/her own obligations to the speaker, to answer) but the listener's wants to appear competent and/or cooperative as well. Interrupting to request an intelligible utterance f,'am the speaker would avoid such results. Interruptions, therefore, provide a possible 'solution' to those interactional dilemmas created when deciding whose rights, obligations, and/or wants should and/or will take precedence over others. That is, interruptions arise not as mere violations of the turn-taking rules but in response to the inherent conflict between interactional norms which promote single speakership and normative pressures which are often satisfied only by flouting those turntaking constraints. Thus, while one party is speaking, the other's listening may be marred by interactional pressures for: (1) (immediately) securing the turn-space at the end of the ongoing turn; (2) displaying active and continued listenership: comprehension, reception, and cursory (dis)agreement (typically in the form of backchannel remarks) and/or the lack of comprehension or reception (in the form of clarification, repetition, misapprehension, and repair requests);
J.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
887
(3) achieving the 'precise' placement of comments and 'next' items such as topics, stories, and badinage in order to guarantee their 'sequential implicativeness'; (4) gaining the speaker's immediate attention to present issues of somewhat greater priority than those under discussion (e.g., 'Fire!'); (5) addressing the interactional requirements entailed by one's role and situation (e.g., a moderator's role requires attending to time, topic and audience concerns which override the obligation to let an interviewee speak at length in response to a prior query); and (6) satisfying one's own 'face wants' and/or notions of 'distributive justice' by presenting one's own issues and perspectives irrespective of their topical fit or effect upon the speaker's 'face'. In addition, conversationalists must decide betwe~.n opposing politeness norms - to show the speaker either camaraderie (positive politeness) or deference and distance (negative politeness) as the means for protecting that speaker's face (Brown and Levinson (!987), Lakoff (!973), Tannen (!98!a)). Any one of these pressures may be sufficiently strong to induce a listenipg party to initiate a turn before the speaker has finished. Augmenting the speakership code to take account of these competing interactional norms makes it possible to provide a conceptually coherent account of interruptions, one which is not only capable of accounting for 'how' but also for 'why' different types of interruptions occur (cf. Dindia (1987), Graham (1985), Kennedy and Camden (1983)). It is further warranted in that it can account for a wider number of cases as well as pan-cultural phenomena. That is, while unimpeded single speakership may be the idealized norm for middle class, 'White Anglo-Saxon Protestant' speakers of North American English (and perhaps only for those living on the West Coast), it does not appear to be the norm for middle cla~ Jewish New Yorkers (Tannen (1981a, b) nor is it the norm for a host of other English and non-English speaking (sub-)cultures (see e.g., Maltz and Borker (1982), Reisman (1974)). In addition, the modified account begins to tie together into a unified system the various 'bits and pieces' which are said to 'drive' verbal interaction: turntaking, politeness, discourse units, organizational scripts or schemata, and the like.
3. The interpretive heuristic This paper employs z first order set of interpretive strategies for differentiating between interruption types. The first step in the interpretive schema is to identify and separate relationally neutral interruptions from relationally loaded ones (i.e., those falling along the power-rapport continuum). Neutral interruptions arise from the
888
J.A. Gotdberg / Imerrupting the discourse
listener's participatory rights and obligations (consider normative pressures 2, 4 and 5). Relationally loaded interruptions are the by-product of the listener's participatory wants (consider normative pressures 1, 3 and 6).
3.1. Relationally neutral interruptions Relationally neutral interruptions are those which address the immediate needs of the communicative situation. They may elicit a repair, repeat, or clarification of the prior, interrupted utterance (as in examples 1 and 2) or they may address an externally impinging event/issue which requires immediate attention before the conversation continues (as in example 3). They are not intentionally face-threatening acts. Nor do they appear to be intended to wrest control of the discourse from the interrupted speaker. Nevertheless, the speaker-cum-interruptee is expected (obligated) to temporarily relinquish her/ his speakership rights. This alone attests to the neutral (warranted) nature of these interruptions. (A key to the transcription notations is supplied in the appendix.) (!) P : = It urn, (hh.) (0.3) I see- I have wiped back theah 'n' seen a little
D"
(2) P : D: p:
(3) S : M:
M"
S:
blood. (hh) That's every once in great while, havin' seen any recently. That wz the[e].There wz discharge, where? (Frankel: D - P interviews) Okay, the doctor wz uh, doctor Eddington He's the first n i n e that told[Ehrinton? Eddington. He works out've ... (Frankel: D - P interviews) Well, I didn't, y'know, but this is what I to lid her [Excuse me, did you ask me[ Now just put it back! Since when do you have the right to just help yourself. Go on, put it back now! All of it! And the other hand. Y'know you're just getting beyond, beyond (.) anything. You're rude! ((addressed to her young son)) ((returning to S)) Okay Now, under these circumstances (.) would you have gone? (S/M: Telephone call)
J.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
889
3.1.2. Neutral vs. non-neutral interruptions
Neutral interruptions, in effect, initiate minor side, repair or misapprehension sequences; once completed the discourse is returned to its pre-interruption state thereby 'allowing' the interrupted speaker to continue where s/he left off (Jefferson (1972)). This is not the case when the interruption arises from a listener want the speaker is neither obligated nor expected to relinquish his/ her turn (as in example 4). (4) A: I couldn't [sltand [him. B" [I couldn't believe that. A: No [multiple choice tests. B: [I STRUggled(SM: SCA) Nor is the interruptor expected/obligated t o provide for the return of the discourse to its pre-interruption state (as in example 5). (5) P :
What was the connection to the shift? (.) What was the connection? G : The connection wasS : = The connection was you ca: n't have a conversation with this (kind) around. G&S: ((laugh)) (Page: Office)
Example 6 demonstrates the distinction between neutral (sanctioned) and non-neutral interruptions being argued for here. (6) J :
R:
J:
He went right down on the fie: id'n'e w'js sittin there talkin like a nigger, en all the guys (I mean) all these niggers er a:U Iup there in[You mean Ne: gro: don't'cha Weh en they're all- ih u- [story continues] (GTS: IV: 23(r): ST)
As a neutral act, the interruptee is expected to defer to the interruptor. This is exactly what J initially proceeds to do. However, as a non-neutral act, it is the interruptee's option whether or not to complete or terminate his/her ongoing turn. Thus, having reassessed the 'true nature' of R's interruption as a nonr~eutral act, J reasserts his rights to a complete and unimpeded turn. What has happened is that the form and function of R's utterance initially appears to be a warranted, sanctioned and, therefore, neutral interruption for clarifica-
890
J. A, Goldberg / Interruptivg tiw discourse
tion. However, J quickly realizes that R's clarification request is, in fact, not a request at all. Rather, it is "hearable' as a non-sanctioned "repair' which J apparently perceives as a challenge to J's face or public identity (see Goldberg (1987)). This reevaluation of R's interruption accounts for J's subsequent response ("Well, an' they're ...") which, in essence, 'negates' or 'erases' R's interrupting remark by returning the narrative to its pre-interruption state. (In this way, too, J manages to avoid having to address the implicit complaint/ challenge contained in R's remark/query.) 3.2. Power vs. rapport interruptions
Power and rapport type interruptions are designed to satisfy li:;tener wants at the expense of his/her own obligations to support the rights (and wants) of the speaker to an unimpeded turn. Distinguishing between these two types of interruptions is the next step (step 2) of the heuristic. The funda'~i~ental difference between these two types of interruptions is in ut~; ui;~l~;~; [ O w u t ~ l t the positive and negative wants of the interrupted speaker are addressed. As speaker wants are essentially to be listened to (a negative want) and to feel that what s/he has to say is of interest to others (a positive want), when the |istener-cum-interruptor cuts off the speaker to insert remarks which are neither coherent nor cohesive with the speaker's remarks, what s/he has done is to ignore both the speaker's positive and negative wants. The speaker's contribution is treated as though it is uninteresting: not worthy of being listened to, let alone heard out. The insertion of coherent-cohesive remarks, however, (indirectly) addresses the speaker's positive wants while transzressing the speaker's negative wants. The classification of interruptions as power oriented is predicated on the assumption, therefore, that power involves the interactants in divergent goal orientations reflecting their own individual interests and wants regardless of their partner's interests and wants. Rapport, on the other hand, involves the interactants in mutual, shared or overlapping goal orientations whether or not their individual approaches to their common goal coincide. Power-oriented interruptions are generally heard as rude, impolite, intrusive and inappropriate; conveying the interruptor's antipathy, aggression, hostility, dislike, disdain, apathy, etc. towards the interrupted speaker and/or the talk at hand. The interruption is concomitantly treated as an act of conflict, competition, or non-involvement. Rapport-oriented interruptions, on the other hand, are generally understood as expressions of open empathy, affection, solidarity, interest, concern, etc. Rapport interruptions are viewed as acts of collaboration, cooperation, and/or mutual orientation providing the interruptee with immediate feedback, filling in informational gaps, and elaborating on the interruptee's topic or theme.
J.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
891
Despite the subjective quality of this description, it is, nevertheless, possible to 'mechanistically' distinguish between power- and rapport-based interruptions. The type or degree of 'fit' between the interrupting and interrupted utterances can, in large part, be assessed in terms of the coherent-cohesive ties of the former with the latter. This can be done using a classification system a system of 'moves' - as simple and basic as the one described in Goldberg (1984). The system consists of three basic moves: (re-)introducing, progressiveholding, and holding moves. Those interrupting utterances which fall under the rubric of (re-)introducing moves are power-oriented. Those which meet the criteria for holding moves are rapport-oriented. Interrupting utterances of the progressive-holding type range along the whole length of the rapport portion of the continuum. (On occassion, they may fall within the marginal power portion of the continuum. This point will be addressed below.) The (relative) placement of the interruption along the rapport end of the continuum is affected by the proportion of holding to non-holding (progressive) elements. These distinctions are captured in figure i. 'MOVE' TYPE a introducing re-introducingb
progressive-holding
holding rapport-oriented
power-oriented INTERRUPTION TYPE
'Moves' are the coherent-cohesive 'fit' of the interrupting utterance with the interrupted utterance. b I am assuming that because the 'item' or 'topic' was introduced earlier that its re-introduction is marginally less abruvt or abrasive (and, therefore, not as face-threatening) as freshly introduced topics in an interruption. Fig. 1. Power- and rapport-oriented interruptions in terms of a system of "moves'.
Thus, 'power' is assignable to those interruptions which are off-topic, which re-introduce topics, or which contain few (if any) coherent-cohesive ties with the interrupted utterance. However, the 'rapport' classification is assigned to those interruptions which stay on-topic by meeting the requ,.'rements for either holding or progressive-holding moves. Exhibiting a greater degree of (topical or cohesive) 'fit' with the interrupted utterance may account for the positive face orientation of rapport type interruptions.
3.2.1. Power type interruptions Power type interruptions are designed to wrest the discourse from the speaker by gaining control of the conversational process and/or content. Such power
J..4. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
892
type interruptions typically revolve topic change attempts accomplished by questions and requests (process control strategies) or by assertions or statements (content controt strategies) whose propositionA content is unrelated to the specific topic at hand. Of the two types, process control interruptions may be heard as marginally less face-threatening than content control interruptions, l n e face-threat (and power orientation) may be mitigated simply because process control acts return the floor to the interruptee (cf. the discussion of neutral interruptions above and Murray (1985). In this way, the interruptor is able to mask or curtail much of the speaker's (potential) face loss by granting the speaker control over the substance (but not direction) of the discourse (as in examples 7 and 8). (7) S is describing a wedding to M. S : It was uh absolutely eloquent. They- No expenses were spared and u f h :M: l a n d did E tell you about the uh bu- bus mitzvah? S : Yes. [S continues with a description of the bus mitzvah] (S/M: Telephone call) (8) F :
M:
And they were telling about a show- uh, a new movie with (.) about a guy who (.) was in Howard Hughes's will or something (2.0) Just an ordinar [ y (..... ) [_Did YOU wanta cut your hair? (B.K. Crow: Topic Shifts: 1983)
The interruptee, upon regaining the floor, is compelled to address the interruptor's issues or topical focus (of. Schegloff and Sacks' (1973) discussion of adjacency pairs). 4 Content control interruptions, unlike process control interruptions, generally have a greater deleterious effect upon the discourse. These interruptions emphasize the potential face-threat and power motive by usurping the interruptee's access to and control over both the floor and topic. When successful, content control interruptions constrain both the direction and substance of the discourse. Control is now in the hands of the interruptor (as in examples 9-12). In fact, the interruptee's immediately subsequent remark is often one which ratifies the interruptor's control. (This is what happens in examples 11 and 12.) 4 Incidentally, Beckman and Frankel (1984) note that this is a problem often incurred in medical interviews.
J.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
(9)
893
B is describing the differences between U.S. and U.K. university education. B • Yes, yeah, th,, difference for us is that our-[our n" [I'm doing my doctorate in France. I pay fifteen pounds a year, that's it. B : Wow. (Isobel's House: Dinner)
(10) H :
Z"
H:
I mean that there is a- there's a- there's not that warmth there, Zelda. It's- it's- they could hhh care[less about it! [Boy you need a shave so[bad! [I- know I do ... (Schiffrin, 1984: 321(6))
(11) S is explaining why she has declined M's invitation to dinner. S : But as I say, so uh we'll just go out a couple of days later when we go to the, y'know, when we go to th[e M: t MY husband's going to get me an anniversary present. S : Say that again. M: [M uses S's repetition request to embark on her story] (S/M: Telephone call) (12) D : S: D: S:
... But sometimes asking that directly is not as effective as experiencing, so I'm al[so looking[I'd like to say something (.) about psyc:manalysis. Okay. Um, I believe ... (DA: 11:10 (#84 S-l: 04))
(It should be noted that process control interruptions do not pit interruptee against interruptor in this way. Instead, having redirected the course of the conversation, the interruptor appears to be content to let the interruptee speak (as in example 7)).
3.2.2. Rapport type interruptions Rapport type interruptions are characteristically less face-threatening than power type interruptions. In fact, rapport interruptions often strive to bolster the interruptee's positive face.
J.A. Gotdberg / lmerrupt#~g the discourse
894
Rapport interruptions encourage and contribute to the developmen~ of the (speaker's) talk by inserting (short) informative or evaluative comments or by requesting the speaker to supply evaluative or informativ." remarks (~ee examples 1 3 - 1 5 ) . Well, ah- 48's[-pretty hard isn't it? B • [.Very hard. B" VERY. Well, I rA • [I took it last semester andand dropped it cause | didn't like the guy, = B : = Did you have Wagner? A" Yeah. [Wagner. B • [.Wasn t he a pain? A • I couldn't[stand[him. B • [.I [.I couldn't believe that. A : No[multiple choice tests. B : [I STRUggledB • I struggled, like, I was[like A • [I was gettin D's[and F's. B • [ I walked in- So was I. I pulled off the final. I don't know how I did it. I pulled a C[and, = A • [Really? B : = and said that's fine cause- I didn't wanna take it over. A: Really? A : OH, YEAH.
(13)
A •
(SM: SCA) (14) D :
)
P:
D"
(15) G : P:
Well, we just had a baby, did- didja know? (.) i~'s kinda funny because everyone asks me 'How's the baby?' and (.) there's not a whole lot to say cause she doesn't talk (.) and (.) she doesn't move very much, except like this ((demonstrates)) [ and[Is she joyful, or is she kind of a sad type? I keep telling the same storyYeah, she's very (.) She's smiling a lot now and laughing ... (DA: 12:11 (#31 P-l:05)) [story] Did that just happen?
J.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
G: P:=
S: G:
895
It happened in December (.) I was ju:::st hysterical. He = You're kidding! You mean after you got to scrhool? [Where wa::s he a professor'? Oxford. (.) An' he was parTICularly attracted to young women ((l:.ughs)). And he had this ... (Page: Office)
In either case, the interruptor's contribution is hearable as a cooperative gesture sharing the speaker's wants regarding the success of the speakerinitiated topic, issues or goals (Houtkoop and Mazeland (1985), Tannen (1981a, b)). Together the (interrupted) speaker and (interrupting) listener develop a common topic, displaying as they do so their joint enthusiasm for, involvement with, or understanding of the other and the issues or goals at hand (as in examples 16 and 17). (16) P : T: P: T:
What I've been doing is cutting down on my sleep. Oyh. ((sighs)) And I've been (.) and lrsLI do that too but it's painful = (Tannen, 1981a: 13)
(17) P :
[story] And she jus- you know (.) she just completely reversed the whole situation (.) In a sense it was interesting, but in another sense i[tI wasdon't know if you can have two (.) two: (.) I mean things get different when both parties play the ga:me. Yeah. [*Note: Here, P has the option to retrieve or transfer control of the topic.] (Page: Office)
S : *p:
Occasionally, the nature of the listener's questions or comments may alter the specific course and content of the talk. These interruptions involve slight shifts (rather than major changes) in topical focus or perspective - shifting from the speaker's displays, perceptions, accounts, or stories to those of the listener (i.e., different events/same themes). These shifts may be the listener's way of feeding back to the speaker his/her understanding of and continued interest in the discourse (as in examples 18 and 19).
8t;'6
J, A. Goldberg / b~terrupling the discourse D~
I was determined this ti~¢ I wasn't going to[quit.
[Oh,
E:
that's- (.) I guess that's what I felt Peggy was feeling. (DA: 14:12 (#72 E-2" 45)) (19) D : P: D: P:
... But that's her whole life, you know, that's (.) and she eats and shits andYeah,[my[.that's terrific, but I can'[t tell them about that I.M'--m'---my sister just had a baby. Well, I guess that was last March now... (DA: 12:11 (#31 P-l:05))
Some speakers may, nevertheless, feel threatened by such shifts in perspective, interpreting the listener's rapport acts as power ones designed to discount the speaker's presentation ~ unimportant, inconsequential or d~wnright uninteresting (see Tannen (1981a, b)). This feeling may be accentuated when the interruptor's comments come across as competitive or combative in tenor (as in examples 2v--23). In example 20, S's combative remarks dramatize her incredulity at anyone spending $139 on sheets, especially ones with holes in them. (20) S :
Yeah. With 6 sets that's 3 sheets =
M: = No=
S : = Okay, a pillowcaseM" = No.[Listen to meS • [.! want to know how you[spent $139 M" [Listen to me. There are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 sets. That's 6 uh 6 flat sheets, 6 ... (S/M: Telephone call)
3.2.2.1 Competitive interruptions. Competitive interruptions occupy the central portion of the power-rapport continuum. Although they tend to be rapport-oriented, these interruptions exhibit features of both: like rapporttype interruptions they stay on-topic; like power-type interruptions they address the speaker's negative face. Each party strives to get the other to acknowledge his/her own particular beliefs, accomplishments or experiences as being in some sense 'superior' to those of the other (see example 21).
J.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
(21) M:
M: S: M:
S" M: M:
897
As a matter of fact, I'm going to switch my optician not because of that. I'm switchin for another reason. Why? Well, first of all, he's very sarcastic andOh, well, if they've gotten- made so much money[maybe we can find ] [Well, wait a minute.] Somebody[that]uh so that, support =
tNoJ
Wait. Wait a minute. Wait. There's another guy. There's another young guy in town, and he's got cancer They're right across from my building S : M: Right, right. And I'm going to go to him = M: I-Slater? S " = [IS : I was thinking about that, too ... (S/M: Telephone call) This is also seen in example (22) where both students are engaged in a form of complaint one-upmanship. The students are both committed to the topic at hand and offer their remarks as a display of alignment and mutual understanding. Yet, each comes across as if her own personal experience and/or perspective is demonstrably 'better' than the other's. (22) B : G: B:=
For a start there was tha' on my bit there was the whole of that Kintsch book Right. (.) And this Collingwood = Look, I mean this this Kintsch this was my section. That is a whole book. (D. Good: Pre-tutorial)
Eventually, each reaffirms her rapport with the other. In (23) this reaffirmation is expediated through their interrupting of one another. (23) B :
G" G" B • G :
But you know I'm just so sort of (0.8) tired and fed up I, you know, I really feel like chucking things in sometimes an[so I[It is exactly. I mean I- I-[I can see why Chris is so ecstatic. [I m not surprised Chris= I mean he must be, y'know, in his third heaven. (D. Good: Pre-tutorial)
898
d.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
3.2.2.2. Teases. puns, quips and the like as interruptions. Teases and "oneliners' (such as puns, quips and banter) are probably the most difficult interruptions to place or classify along the power-rapport continuum. The reason for this power/rapport ambiguity is, in part, due to their conversational form. Teases and one-liners rely upon precision timing and sequential implicativeness for their success. Any form of prefacing, apology or tentativeness will destroy the impact achieved through this initial placement thereby contributing to the utterance's 'failure'. Consequently, these remarks must be produced forcefully, directly and with impunity. The interruptee must be induced to temporarily give way to the interruptor, creating space for the remark to be completed, noticed and 'heard' then and there, s Teases and the like are often perceived as face-threatening acts (Brown and Levinson (1987)) especially when they build off the speaker's (momentary) incompetence (as in example 24).
(24) B : J •
It begins with a 'D'. YOU know the stuff at the ends of chicken legs. Wh[at's it ca: lled? L! only eat chicken wings. (JG: BB: 2)
Although the interruptee may 'laugh' along with the interruptor, s/he may, nevertheless, still feel the threat to her/his face as well as the frustrations associated with being temporarily 'upstaged' by the other's witticism. Examples of this type of interruption are found in examples 25 and 26. (Example 26 poignantly illustrates K's frustrations.) (25) P :
What was the connection to the shift? (.) What was the connection? G: The connection wasS : = The connection was you ca: n't have a conversation with this (kind) around. G&S: ((laugh)) (Page: Office)
s In some cases, an interruptor may mitigate his/her power orientation or convey his/her rapport orientation by linguistically marking the interrupting utterance. By calling attention to the interruption's dispreferred status, the interruptor 'recognizes" the speaker's continued fight to the floor. The interruptor, in this way, provides the interrupted speaker with options (a form of nega'ive pofiteness) at the risk of not being able to complete his/her interrupting turn. Thus, in the following example, Y's hesitancy and apology for switching topics indicates her cognizance of the interruption's 'unwarranted' and potentially negative face-threatening status. X: = I was talking with E about that, y'know. A n [ d Y: LSorry to interrupt, but Moerman wrote this article on the connectedness of stories and how- (.) I was just watching the topic shift. (Page: Office)
J.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
(26) K" R" K
.
R" K"
ggO
No, they're women who'v devo[ded their l[They re women that hadda[bad love[life'n became nuns [their- [_THEIR LIFE.hh[heh hh! [their life, to uh (0.6) the devotion of the church. (GTS: Jefferson and Schegloff: 1975)
3.3. Rapport or power? It's all relative
As can be readily appreciated, since a major difference between power- and rapport-type interruptions is often a matter of degree rather than kind, each exchange must set its own parameters. There are no absolute evaluative criteria; that which is considered power in one case may be rapport in another (see Bennett (!981)). This may account for why the interactants' intentions and perceptions may fail to coincide. 6 This is especially true for those power/rapport readings obtained from the central portion of the continuum. Nevertheless, for any given exchange, power-oriented interruptions are relatively more face-threatening - threatening both the speaker's positive and negative face wants - by sharing fewer (if any) topical ties with the interrupted utterance than do rapport-oriented interruptions. These major differences are summarized in figure 2 below. HI POWER
marked utterance" + complete utterance + self focus/interest other focus/interest - topic coherence + content control 4- process control
LO POWER/RAPPORT
LO RAPPORT/POWER
_[.
m
4+ + weak 44-
4+ 4weak + 4.4-
-
-
HI RAPPORT
+ ± + +
marked utterance a complete utterance self focus/interest other focus/interest topic coherence content control 4- process control -
' Marked utterances are those containing such (para)linguistic features as hesitations, syllable repetitions, accounts, apologies, ant the like. Fig. 2. Characteristic features of the interrupting utterance along the power/rapport continuum. (The boxed area represents the ambiguous ~ntral portion along the continuum where power and rapport begin to merge.) 6 The response/reaction of the interrupted speaker to the interruption (found in the ongoing, interrupted turn and/or in the speaker's turn immediately following the interruption) serves to confirm or disconfirm, accept or reject, the interruptor's assessment of the propriety of his/her behavior.
900
J. A, (iohtherg ,' lnterrut~ting the dtscourse
4. Summary Throughout this paper, it has been argued that the traditional, a p r i o r L inlerpretation of interruptions as unequivocal signs of power, control or dominance is incorrect. Interruptions are a conversational phenomenon affected by many variables including the respective rights, obligations and wants of the speaker and listener; the personality traits of the speaker and listener; and their respective moods, relational dispositions and levels of topical involvement. The analyst's sensitivity to these factors will help avoid many of the problems associated with research on interruptions, viz. the spurious designation of personality and/or relational quality. Indeed, since 'fit would be a mistake ... to infer that each interruption event is a miniature battle for ascendency" (Meltzer et al. (1971: 392)), the purpose of this paper is to provide a rudimentary, first-order heuristic for getting at an interruption's type: as power, rapport, or neutral acts. It is important to note that the centrality and sanctity of a singular speakership code is but one of the codes governing the transfer of turns at talk. By designating interruptions as relatienal acts of neutrality, ~ower, or rapport it will, in future, be possible to get a more complete and accurate picture of the interpersonal nature and quality of an exchange. Interruptions are, after all, indicative of interpersonal relationships other than dominance.
Appendix
Transcription symbols
[ n
6) (1.5) CAPS
(no) (--)
sound is held onset of interruption or overlapped speech 'latching'; no interval between the end of a turn and the start of the next cut off speech; often a self-interruption micro-pause pauses in tenths of seconds stressed segment transcrioer is unsure of transcription unintelligible segment
Although this paper does not address these reactions, it is neverthelessimportant to note that responses/reactions which are repeatedly contrary to what is normatively expected may be suggestive of an established or emergent relational conflict, power imbalanceor control struggle• The interruptee's (repeated) challenges serve to redefine the other's view of the relationship: of each party's respectiveand joint rights, obligations,wants, and status/roles. Similarly,speakers or interruptors who acquiesce tog L'eadilyor who 'fight' when inappropriate to do so may be heard as conveyingtheir own insecuritiesor aggressiveness•
J.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
901
Transcripts Ex. # Transcript citation
Transfer source
(1)
Richard Frankel, Doctor-Patient Interviews Julia Goldberg, telephone call between two housewives, S&M
Frankel: D-P interviews
(2) (3) (ll) (20) (21) (4) (13) (5)
S/M: Telephone call
SM: SCA Page: Office
05) (17) (25) (6) (26) (8)
GTS: IV: 23(r): ST GTS: Jefferson and Schegloff: 1975 B.K. Crow: Topic Shifts: 1983
(9)
Isobel's house: Dinner
(lO)
Schiffrin, 1984: 321(6)
(12) (14) (18) (19) (16)
DA: 11:10 ( # 84 S-1:04) DA: 12:11 (#31 P-l:05) DA: 14:12 ( # 72 E-2:45) DA: 12:11 (#31 P-l:05) Tannen, 1981a: 13
(22) (23)
D. Good: Pre-tutorial
(24)
JG:BB:2
Sandra Metts, Students comparing accounts Judy Page, graduate students (2 female, 1 male) chatting in their office. Gall Jefferson, group therapy sessions Bryon K. Crow, topic shifts in couples' interactions Jufia Goldberg, conversation between 2 female friends over dinner at Isobel's house (recorded in England) Deborah Schiffrin, talk between a married couple, example cited in her article (1984, p. 321, ex. 6) David Alequire, examples cited in his paper (1978)
Deborah Tannen, conversation bet~een friends during Thanksgiving Dinner, example cited in her article (1981 a) David Good, 2 female students chatting before their tutorial session began (recorded in England) Julia Goldberg, conversation between a dating couple while playing tennis
References Agrawal, A., 1976. Who will speak next. Papers in Linguistic Analysis I: 58-71. Department of
Linguistics, University of Delhi (India).
9{)2
d. ,4. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
Alequire. David, 1978. Interruptions as turn-taking. Paper presented at Ninth World Congress of Sociology, Uppsala, Sweden. Arndt, Hans. n.d. Speech functions, cooperation, and competition in dialogue. Beattie, Geoffrey W., 1981. Interruption in conversational interaction and its relation to the sex and status of the interactants. Linguistics 19: 15-35. Beattie, Geoffrey, W., 1982. Turn-taking and interruption in political interviews: Margaret Thatcher and Jim Callaghan compared and contrasted. Semiotica 39(1/2): 93-113. Beckman, Howard B. and Richard M. Frankel, 1984. The effect of physician behavior on the collection of data. Annals of Internal Medicine 101(5): 692--696. Bennett, Adrian, 1981. Interruption and the interpretation of conversation. Discourse Processes 4: 171-188. Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson, 1987 [1978]. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York/London: Cambridge University Press. Butterworth, Brian, 1975. Hesitation and semantic planning in speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 1: 75-87, Dindia, Kathryn, 1987. The effects of sex of subject and sex of partner on interruptions. Human Communication Research 13: 345-371. Duncan, Starkey, Jr., 1972. Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. | ..... ! .,o,.,,~,~ of Personality and Social Psychology 23(2): 283-293. Edelsky, Carole, 1981. Who's got the floor? Language in Society 10(5): 383-421. Ervin-Tripp, Susan, 1979. 'Children's verbal turn-taking'. In: E. Ochs and B.B. Schieffelin, eds., Developmental pragmatics. London: Academic Press. pp. 391-414. Farina, Amerigo, 1960. Patterns of role dominance and conflict in parents of schizophrenic patients. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 61: 31-38. Ferguson, Nicola, 1977. Simultaneous speech, interruptions and dominance. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 16(4): 295-302. Folger, Joseph P. and Alan L. Sillars, 1978. The perceived dominance of conversational acts: Three reports on the validity of relational coding procedures. Ms., Cleveland State University (June). French, Peter and John Local, 1983. Turn-competitive incomings. Journal of Pragrnatics 7: 17-38. Gallois, Cynthia and Norman N. Markel, 1975. Turn taking: Social personality and conversational style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31:1134-1140. Goldberg, Julia A., 1984. 'A move toward describing conversational coherence'. In: R.T. Craig and K. Traey, eds.. Conversational coherence: Studies of form and strategy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. pp. 25-45. Goidberg, Julia A., 1987. Defining identities: The role of repair. (Submitted) Graham, Maudie L., 1985. An integrative framework for explaining simultaneous talk. Paper presented to the annual Speech Communication Association Convention, Denver, CO (November). Hetherington, E. Mavis, Roger J. Stouwie and Eugene H. Ridberg, 1971. Patterns of family interaction and child-rearing attitudes related to three dimensions of juvenile delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 78:160--176. Houtkoop, Hanneke and Harrie Mazeland, 1985. Turns and discourse units in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 595--619. Jacob, Theodore, 1974. Patterns of family conflict and dominance as a function of child age and social class. Developmental Psychology 10: 1-12. Jacob, Theodore, 1975. Family interaction in disturbed and normal families: A methodological and substantive review. Psychological Bulletin 82: 33--65. Jefferson, Gail, 1972. 'Side sequences'. In: D. Sudnow, ed., Studies in social interaction. New York/London: Macmillan. pp. 294--388. Jefferson, Gail and Emanuel Sehegloff, 1975. Sketch: Some orderly aspects of overlap in natural conversation. Paper presented to the American Anthropological Association (December).
J.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
903
Kennedy, Carol W. and Carl T. Camden, 1983. A new look at interruptions. Western Journal of Speech Communication 47(1): 45-58. Koliock, Peter, Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz, 1985. Sex and power in interaction. American Sociological Review 50: 34--46. Lakoff, Robin T., 1973. 'The logic of politeness; or, minding your p's and o's'. In: C. Corum, T.C. Smith-Stark and A. Weiser, eds., Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. pp. 292-305. Leffler, A., D. Gillespie and J.C. Conaty, 1980. Top dogs and space hngs: The effects of status differentiation on nonverbal behavior. Ms., Department of Sociology, University of Utah. Maltz, Daniel and Ruth Borker, 1982. 'Socialization and sex differences in speech interpretation'. In: J. Gumperz, ed., Language and social identity. New York/London: Cambridge University Press. pp. 195-216. Meltzer, Leo, William N. Morris and Donald Hayes, 1971. Interruption outcomes and vocal amplitude: Explorations in social psychophysics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 18(3): 392-402. Millar, Frank E. and L. Edna Rogers, 1980. Relational approach to discourse analysis: Emphasis on domineeringness and dominance. Paper presented to the International Communication Association Convention, Acap,lcn, Mexico tM~,,~ Mishler, Elliot G. and Nancy E. Waxier, 1968. Interaction in families: An experimental study of family processes and schizophrenia. New York: Wiley. Murray, Stephen O., 1985. Toward a model of members' methods for recognizing interruptions. Language in Society 13: 31-41. Murray, Stephen O., 1987. Power and solidarity in 'interruption': A critique of the Santa Barbara School conception and its application by Orcutt and Harvey (1985). Symbolic Interaction 10:101-110. Natale, Michael, Elliot Entin and Joseph Jaffe, 1979. Vocal interruptions in dyadic communication as a function of speech and social anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37: 865-878. Orcutt, James D. and Lynn Kenneth Harvey, 1985. Deviance, rule-breaking and male dominance in conversation. Symbolic Interaction 8: 15-32. Reisman, Karl, 1974. 'Contrapuntal conversations in an Antiguan village'. In: R. Bauman and J. Sherzer, eds., Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. New York/London: Cambridge University Press. pp. 110-124. Rim, Y., 1977. Personality variables and interruptions in small discussions. European Journal of Social Psychology 7(2): 247-251. Riskin, Jules M. and Elaine E. Faunce, 1972. An evaluative review of family interaction research. Family Process I 1 : 365-456. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson, 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696-735. Schegloff, Emanuel and Harvey Sacks, 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8: 283-327. Schiffrin, Deborah, 1984. Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society 13: 311-335. Tannen, Deborah, 1981a. New York Jewish conversational style. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 32: 133-149. Tannen, Deborah, 1981b. Talking New York: It's not what you say, it's the way you say it. New York Magazine (March 30): 30-33. Thomas, Jenny A., 1985 The language of power: Towards a dynamic pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 765-783. West, Candace, 1979. ',4 gainst our will: Male interruptions of females in cross-sex conversations'. In: J. Orasanu, M. Slater and L. Adler, eds., Language, sex and gender, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 327. pp. 81-97. Wilmot, William W., Donal Carbaugh, Betsy W. Bach and Connie A. Bullis, 1982. Interpersonal power in conflict: Self-reports and objective measures. Paper presented to the Western Speech Communication Association Convention, Denver, CO (February).
883
INTERRUPTING THE DISCOURSE ON INTERRUPTIONS
AIt~ Analysis in Terms of Relationaliy Neutral, Power- and Rapport-Oriented .~,t:ts
Julia A. GOLDBERG*
Received March 1988; revised version January t989
Analysts interested in the social significance of conversational behavior have traditionally treated interruptions as reliable, objective indicators of the interlocutors' power, control or dominance. The relational significance interruptions have for the participants themselves, however, was rarely considered. Recently, researchers have become increasingly aware that interruptions are not and need not be synonymous with power. This paper attempts to differentiate between power and non-power interruptions. It provides a means for assessing the 'meaning' of each interruption as a display of relational power or rapport, or as a non-relational display of 'neutrality'.
1. Introduction Interruptions have traditionally been viewed as reliable and objective indicators of such personal and relational attributes as domineeringness and dominance. The assumption that one could measure power in this way has been fostered by context- and content-free analyses of conversational data. Once one considers the content and context, the interruption-power correlation begins to break down. While some interruptions may indeed be power displays, the researcher cannot assume that all are. Some are rapport displays; still others have pothir, g to do with personal or relational displays of this sort at all. The que:;tion is, which interruptions are which? By what criteria are interruptions hearable as power, rapport, or 'neutral' acts? This question is addressed in section 3 of this paper. However, before presenting the categorization schema, it is beneficial to reconsider the underlying assumptions which lead to the equating of interruptions with power in the first place as well as the research casting doubt on its validity. It is the contention of this author that once one replaces the misl,~ading assumption * Author's address: J.A. Goldberg, Dept. of Communication, P.O. Box 3341, University Station, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82071, USA. 0378-2166/90/$03.50 © 1990 - - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)
884
Y.,4. Goldberg / hlterrupting the discourse
regarding the centrality and sanctity of the siagnlar speakership code, it is possible to provide a unified explanation of the occurrence and 'meaning' of interruptions.
2. Interruptions: A review
2.1. A review of the literature
One's right to a turn is considered to be sacrosanct such that during multiparty encounters, one and only one person may appropriately speak at any given time (Duncan (1972), Sacks et al. (1974)). It is this speakership code which is lauded as the underlying, basic code around which all interaction is said to be organized and fzom which it derives its meaning. While some states of overlap do not challenge the speaker's right to complete his/her turn, an interruption's Drim~,,'v function, it is ,q~;,,~,~ ;~ ,-. do just that: to gain immediate control of the discourse - of the turn and/or topic - by pressuring the speaker to relinquish his/her control. Whether successful or not, it is the imputation of volitional intent ~ - intent to disrupt, to take over the turnspac¢ occupied by another, and to generally interfere with the projected form, content, and/or 'ownership' of what is said - which leads to the assumption that interruptions are interactional strategies for exerting and overtly displaying power or control over both the discourse and its participants (Orcutt apd Harvey (1985), also see Arndt (n.d.), Farina (1960), Hetherington et al. (1971), Jacob (1974, 1975), Kollock et al. (1985" 34), Leffler et al. (1980), Meltzer et al. (1971), Mishler and Waxier (1968), Riskin and Fuance (1972), West (1979)). 2 Concomitantly, on the assumption that interruptions violate the other's svakership rights, interruptions tend to be viewed as rude and disrespectful 1 The analytical distinction between 'false starts' and 'interruptions' attests to the interruption's volitional nature. False starts are potential interruptions with the difference that the initiated turn is dropped or terminated immediately - at or before the 'initial drop point' (Jefferson and Schegioff (1975)) - while ~aterruptions continue beyond this drop point. The initiator of the false start is said to recognize his/her timing error and repairs it while the initiator of the interruption (attempts to) build off it to his/her advantage. -' This is a "process' view of power. The person who talks the most, interrupts the most, changes or introduces topics the most, and who 'challenges" (uses 'one-up' moves) the most is seen as more powerful. (See relational communication coding schemes such as Millar and Rogers (1980).) There is a criticai difference between interr:~qions which are successful and those which are not which is often o~'er--iooked or treated as strategically equivalent. Nevertheless, there is a very real distinction be',weer.,, the use of interruptions as a strategy for testing or assessing one's power (etc.) in a relationship and _~nterruptions as a strategy for displaying or exercising one's power. The former recognizes the inte,~,ruptor's negotiation or competition for supremacy (i.e., need to look at who 'wins') while the latter simply assumes the interruptor'~ supremacy irrespective of his/her success rate. (Consider Na~a!e et al. (1979).)
J.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
885
acts: indicative of indifference, aggressiveness or hostility towards the victimized speaker and/or the issues, values, and perspectives embodied within what was being said (West (1979)). The validity of this position is contestable. A number of studies suggest that the correlation of interruptions wire power, control, and/or dominance is weaker than tacitly presumed (Aleguire (1978), Beattie (1981, 1982), Bennett (1981), Dindia (1987), Ferguson (1977), Folger and Sillars (1978), French and Loca]~ (1983), Kennedy and Camden (1983), Millar and Rogers (1980: 25-26, note 5), Murray (1987), Tannen (198 l a), Wilmot et al. (1982)). Some ~nterruptions may convey one's rapport, cooperation, or camaraderie with the interrupted speaker. These interruptions appear to be triggered by the interruptor's enthusiastic interest and active involvement in the discourse (Agrawal (1976), Aleguire (1978), Bennett (1981), Edelsky (1981), Ervin-Tripp (1979), Gallois and Markel (1975~ 1139), Houtkoop and Mazeland (1985), Kennedy and Camden (1983), Tannen (1981a)). Still other studies suggest that some interruptions arise as a direct consequence of the interactants' respective participatory rights and obligations (see Agrawal (1976: 68), Bennett (1981), Edelsky (1981), Murray (1985)). As such, these interruptions reveal precious little about the interruptor's personality or interactional demeanor. Studies by both Gallois and Markel (1975) and Rim (1977) found that not only does interruption frequency vary with respect to the conversation's pha~c but so does its significance or 'meaning'. Likewise, Natale et al. (1979: 874) and Murray (1985) suggest that the occurrence of an interruption may have more to do with the amount of time the other has been talking than with the interruptor's personality. Since interruptions arise from a multitude of personal, relational and conversational sources, to claim that interruptions are all occasioned by an individual's need to dominate or control is patently incorrect. Similarly, any attempt to assign personal and/or relational at:ributes to indivi:]l~als on the basis of an undifferentiated percentage-of-total i n t e ~ p t ~ ~co;~ is untenable, a Given the multifunctional nature of interrupt!on~, ~,~ -'~ dyst must be able to distinguish between those interruptions seemin~!y ~.:,tivated by the interactional rights and obligations of the moment, and those seemingly produced to satisfy personal or interactionai wants or needs. This paper attempts to explicate some of the criteria by which it may be possible to differentiate between power and non-power interruptiens. a Dominance/power scores are frequently computed and assigned to an interactant based on the proportion of interruptions initiated by that person out of the total number of interruptions found within the exchange. As the individual's percentile score increases so too does the 'strength' of his/ her personality type or relational style. However, Millar and Rogers (1980: 13-14) caution that while domineeringness is posiiively correlated with an interactant's total number of interruptions (i.e., 'talkovers'), dominance is not.
886
J.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
2.2. Interruptions and the speakership code As noted, the equating of interruptions with power displays is based on the contention that an individual can easily avoid the initiation of his/her turn before the completion of the other's in-progress turn (Orcutt and Harvey (1985)). Of course, while it is to some extent true that interruptions can be avoided, to do so - to remain stoically, patiently, or even anxiously silent until the end of the other's turn - may have adverse social and/or interactional effects. Issues requiring immediate attention, as well as issues demanding immediate juxtaposition in order to be 'meaningful', let alone coherent, need to be said and said as soon as possible. From this perspective, to wait 'one's turn' may be too late. Rather than treat interruptions as unilateral violations of the speakership code, the research suggests that the speaker's right to an unimpeded turn and the listei-.,-,"s obligation to ensuce this right is not the only code around which conversation ~s principally organized (see Butterworth (1975), Edelsky (1981), Thomas (1985)). Instead, it appears that conversationalists make turn-taking decisions based upon tkeir own and other's rights, obligations, and wants (Houtkoop and Mazeland (1985), Murray (1985, 1987)). The satisfaction of one right, obligation, and/or want may lead to the violation of others. For example, if, as a show of respect for the speaker, a listener waives his/her fights to receive an intelligible utterance from that speaker, the listener may be unable to provide an appropriate response. And, since an inappropriate response (including that of silence) may be interpreted as a face-threatening act, the listener may end up not only violating the speaker's wants (and his/her own obligations to the speaker, to answer) but the listener's wants to appear competent and/or cooperative as well. Interrupting to request an intelligible utterance f,'am the speaker would avoid such results. Interruptions, therefore, provide a possible 'solution' to those interactional dilemmas created when deciding whose rights, obligations, and/or wants should and/or will take precedence over others. That is, interruptions arise not as mere violations of the turn-taking rules but in response to the inherent conflict between interactional norms which promote single speakership and normative pressures which are often satisfied only by flouting those turntaking constraints. Thus, while one party is speaking, the other's listening may be marred by interactional pressures for: (1) (immediately) securing the turn-space at the end of the ongoing turn; (2) displaying active and continued listenership: comprehension, reception, and cursory (dis)agreement (typically in the form of backchannel remarks) and/or the lack of comprehension or reception (in the form of clarification, repetition, misapprehension, and repair requests);
J.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
887
(3) achieving the 'precise' placement of comments and 'next' items such as topics, stories, and badinage in order to guarantee their 'sequential implicativeness'; (4) gaining the speaker's immediate attention to present issues of somewhat greater priority than those under discussion (e.g., 'Fire!'); (5) addressing the interactional requirements entailed by one's role and situation (e.g., a moderator's role requires attending to time, topic and audience concerns which override the obligation to let an interviewee speak at length in response to a prior query); and (6) satisfying one's own 'face wants' and/or notions of 'distributive justice' by presenting one's own issues and perspectives irrespective of their topical fit or effect upon the speaker's 'face'. In addition, conversationalists must decide betwe~.n opposing politeness norms - to show the speaker either camaraderie (positive politeness) or deference and distance (negative politeness) as the means for protecting that speaker's face (Brown and Levinson (!987), Lakoff (!973), Tannen (!98!a)). Any one of these pressures may be sufficiently strong to induce a listenipg party to initiate a turn before the speaker has finished. Augmenting the speakership code to take account of these competing interactional norms makes it possible to provide a conceptually coherent account of interruptions, one which is not only capable of accounting for 'how' but also for 'why' different types of interruptions occur (cf. Dindia (1987), Graham (1985), Kennedy and Camden (1983)). It is further warranted in that it can account for a wider number of cases as well as pan-cultural phenomena. That is, while unimpeded single speakership may be the idealized norm for middle class, 'White Anglo-Saxon Protestant' speakers of North American English (and perhaps only for those living on the West Coast), it does not appear to be the norm for middle cla~ Jewish New Yorkers (Tannen (1981a, b) nor is it the norm for a host of other English and non-English speaking (sub-)cultures (see e.g., Maltz and Borker (1982), Reisman (1974)). In addition, the modified account begins to tie together into a unified system the various 'bits and pieces' which are said to 'drive' verbal interaction: turntaking, politeness, discourse units, organizational scripts or schemata, and the like.
3. The interpretive heuristic This paper employs z first order set of interpretive strategies for differentiating between interruption types. The first step in the interpretive schema is to identify and separate relationally neutral interruptions from relationally loaded ones (i.e., those falling along the power-rapport continuum). Neutral interruptions arise from the
888
J.A. Gotdberg / Imerrupting the discourse
listener's participatory rights and obligations (consider normative pressures 2, 4 and 5). Relationally loaded interruptions are the by-product of the listener's participatory wants (consider normative pressures 1, 3 and 6).
3.1. Relationally neutral interruptions Relationally neutral interruptions are those which address the immediate needs of the communicative situation. They may elicit a repair, repeat, or clarification of the prior, interrupted utterance (as in examples 1 and 2) or they may address an externally impinging event/issue which requires immediate attention before the conversation continues (as in example 3). They are not intentionally face-threatening acts. Nor do they appear to be intended to wrest control of the discourse from the interrupted speaker. Nevertheless, the speaker-cum-interruptee is expected (obligated) to temporarily relinquish her/ his speakership rights. This alone attests to the neutral (warranted) nature of these interruptions. (A key to the transcription notations is supplied in the appendix.) (!) P : = It urn, (hh.) (0.3) I see- I have wiped back theah 'n' seen a little
D"
(2) P : D: p:
(3) S : M:
M"
S:
blood. (hh) That's every once in great while, havin' seen any recently. That wz the[e].There wz discharge, where? (Frankel: D - P interviews) Okay, the doctor wz uh, doctor Eddington He's the first n i n e that told[Ehrinton? Eddington. He works out've ... (Frankel: D - P interviews) Well, I didn't, y'know, but this is what I to lid her [Excuse me, did you ask me[ Now just put it back! Since when do you have the right to just help yourself. Go on, put it back now! All of it! And the other hand. Y'know you're just getting beyond, beyond (.) anything. You're rude! ((addressed to her young son)) ((returning to S)) Okay Now, under these circumstances (.) would you have gone? (S/M: Telephone call)
J.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
889
3.1.2. Neutral vs. non-neutral interruptions
Neutral interruptions, in effect, initiate minor side, repair or misapprehension sequences; once completed the discourse is returned to its pre-interruption state thereby 'allowing' the interrupted speaker to continue where s/he left off (Jefferson (1972)). This is not the case when the interruption arises from a listener want the speaker is neither obligated nor expected to relinquish his/ her turn (as in example 4). (4) A: I couldn't [sltand [him. B" [I couldn't believe that. A: No [multiple choice tests. B: [I STRUggled(SM: SCA) Nor is the interruptor expected/obligated t o provide for the return of the discourse to its pre-interruption state (as in example 5). (5) P :
What was the connection to the shift? (.) What was the connection? G : The connection wasS : = The connection was you ca: n't have a conversation with this (kind) around. G&S: ((laugh)) (Page: Office)
Example 6 demonstrates the distinction between neutral (sanctioned) and non-neutral interruptions being argued for here. (6) J :
R:
J:
He went right down on the fie: id'n'e w'js sittin there talkin like a nigger, en all the guys (I mean) all these niggers er a:U Iup there in[You mean Ne: gro: don't'cha Weh en they're all- ih u- [story continues] (GTS: IV: 23(r): ST)
As a neutral act, the interruptee is expected to defer to the interruptor. This is exactly what J initially proceeds to do. However, as a non-neutral act, it is the interruptee's option whether or not to complete or terminate his/her ongoing turn. Thus, having reassessed the 'true nature' of R's interruption as a nonr~eutral act, J reasserts his rights to a complete and unimpeded turn. What has happened is that the form and function of R's utterance initially appears to be a warranted, sanctioned and, therefore, neutral interruption for clarifica-
890
J. A, Goldberg / Interruptivg tiw discourse
tion. However, J quickly realizes that R's clarification request is, in fact, not a request at all. Rather, it is "hearable' as a non-sanctioned "repair' which J apparently perceives as a challenge to J's face or public identity (see Goldberg (1987)). This reevaluation of R's interruption accounts for J's subsequent response ("Well, an' they're ...") which, in essence, 'negates' or 'erases' R's interrupting remark by returning the narrative to its pre-interruption state. (In this way, too, J manages to avoid having to address the implicit complaint/ challenge contained in R's remark/query.) 3.2. Power vs. rapport interruptions
Power and rapport type interruptions are designed to satisfy li:;tener wants at the expense of his/her own obligations to support the rights (and wants) of the speaker to an unimpeded turn. Distinguishing between these two types of interruptions is the next step (step 2) of the heuristic. The funda'~i~ental difference between these two types of interruptions is in ut~; ui;~l~;~; [ O w u t ~ l t the positive and negative wants of the interrupted speaker are addressed. As speaker wants are essentially to be listened to (a negative want) and to feel that what s/he has to say is of interest to others (a positive want), when the |istener-cum-interruptor cuts off the speaker to insert remarks which are neither coherent nor cohesive with the speaker's remarks, what s/he has done is to ignore both the speaker's positive and negative wants. The speaker's contribution is treated as though it is uninteresting: not worthy of being listened to, let alone heard out. The insertion of coherent-cohesive remarks, however, (indirectly) addresses the speaker's positive wants while transzressing the speaker's negative wants. The classification of interruptions as power oriented is predicated on the assumption, therefore, that power involves the interactants in divergent goal orientations reflecting their own individual interests and wants regardless of their partner's interests and wants. Rapport, on the other hand, involves the interactants in mutual, shared or overlapping goal orientations whether or not their individual approaches to their common goal coincide. Power-oriented interruptions are generally heard as rude, impolite, intrusive and inappropriate; conveying the interruptor's antipathy, aggression, hostility, dislike, disdain, apathy, etc. towards the interrupted speaker and/or the talk at hand. The interruption is concomitantly treated as an act of conflict, competition, or non-involvement. Rapport-oriented interruptions, on the other hand, are generally understood as expressions of open empathy, affection, solidarity, interest, concern, etc. Rapport interruptions are viewed as acts of collaboration, cooperation, and/or mutual orientation providing the interruptee with immediate feedback, filling in informational gaps, and elaborating on the interruptee's topic or theme.
J.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
891
Despite the subjective quality of this description, it is, nevertheless, possible to 'mechanistically' distinguish between power- and rapport-based interruptions. The type or degree of 'fit' between the interrupting and interrupted utterances can, in large part, be assessed in terms of the coherent-cohesive ties of the former with the latter. This can be done using a classification system a system of 'moves' - as simple and basic as the one described in Goldberg (1984). The system consists of three basic moves: (re-)introducing, progressiveholding, and holding moves. Those interrupting utterances which fall under the rubric of (re-)introducing moves are power-oriented. Those which meet the criteria for holding moves are rapport-oriented. Interrupting utterances of the progressive-holding type range along the whole length of the rapport portion of the continuum. (On occassion, they may fall within the marginal power portion of the continuum. This point will be addressed below.) The (relative) placement of the interruption along the rapport end of the continuum is affected by the proportion of holding to non-holding (progressive) elements. These distinctions are captured in figure i. 'MOVE' TYPE a introducing re-introducingb
progressive-holding
holding rapport-oriented
power-oriented INTERRUPTION TYPE
'Moves' are the coherent-cohesive 'fit' of the interrupting utterance with the interrupted utterance. b I am assuming that because the 'item' or 'topic' was introduced earlier that its re-introduction is marginally less abruvt or abrasive (and, therefore, not as face-threatening) as freshly introduced topics in an interruption. Fig. 1. Power- and rapport-oriented interruptions in terms of a system of "moves'.
Thus, 'power' is assignable to those interruptions which are off-topic, which re-introduce topics, or which contain few (if any) coherent-cohesive ties with the interrupted utterance. However, the 'rapport' classification is assigned to those interruptions which stay on-topic by meeting the requ,.'rements for either holding or progressive-holding moves. Exhibiting a greater degree of (topical or cohesive) 'fit' with the interrupted utterance may account for the positive face orientation of rapport type interruptions.
3.2.1. Power type interruptions Power type interruptions are designed to wrest the discourse from the speaker by gaining control of the conversational process and/or content. Such power
J..4. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
892
type interruptions typically revolve topic change attempts accomplished by questions and requests (process control strategies) or by assertions or statements (content controt strategies) whose propositionA content is unrelated to the specific topic at hand. Of the two types, process control interruptions may be heard as marginally less face-threatening than content control interruptions, l n e face-threat (and power orientation) may be mitigated simply because process control acts return the floor to the interruptee (cf. the discussion of neutral interruptions above and Murray (1985). In this way, the interruptor is able to mask or curtail much of the speaker's (potential) face loss by granting the speaker control over the substance (but not direction) of the discourse (as in examples 7 and 8). (7) S is describing a wedding to M. S : It was uh absolutely eloquent. They- No expenses were spared and u f h :M: l a n d did E tell you about the uh bu- bus mitzvah? S : Yes. [S continues with a description of the bus mitzvah] (S/M: Telephone call) (8) F :
M:
And they were telling about a show- uh, a new movie with (.) about a guy who (.) was in Howard Hughes's will or something (2.0) Just an ordinar [ y (..... ) [_Did YOU wanta cut your hair? (B.K. Crow: Topic Shifts: 1983)
The interruptee, upon regaining the floor, is compelled to address the interruptor's issues or topical focus (of. Schegloff and Sacks' (1973) discussion of adjacency pairs). 4 Content control interruptions, unlike process control interruptions, generally have a greater deleterious effect upon the discourse. These interruptions emphasize the potential face-threat and power motive by usurping the interruptee's access to and control over both the floor and topic. When successful, content control interruptions constrain both the direction and substance of the discourse. Control is now in the hands of the interruptor (as in examples 9-12). In fact, the interruptee's immediately subsequent remark is often one which ratifies the interruptor's control. (This is what happens in examples 11 and 12.) 4 Incidentally, Beckman and Frankel (1984) note that this is a problem often incurred in medical interviews.
J.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
(9)
893
B is describing the differences between U.S. and U.K. university education. B • Yes, yeah, th,, difference for us is that our-[our n" [I'm doing my doctorate in France. I pay fifteen pounds a year, that's it. B : Wow. (Isobel's House: Dinner)
(10) H :
Z"
H:
I mean that there is a- there's a- there's not that warmth there, Zelda. It's- it's- they could hhh care[less about it! [Boy you need a shave so[bad! [I- know I do ... (Schiffrin, 1984: 321(6))
(11) S is explaining why she has declined M's invitation to dinner. S : But as I say, so uh we'll just go out a couple of days later when we go to the, y'know, when we go to th[e M: t MY husband's going to get me an anniversary present. S : Say that again. M: [M uses S's repetition request to embark on her story] (S/M: Telephone call) (12) D : S: D: S:
... But sometimes asking that directly is not as effective as experiencing, so I'm al[so looking[I'd like to say something (.) about psyc:manalysis. Okay. Um, I believe ... (DA: 11:10 (#84 S-l: 04))
(It should be noted that process control interruptions do not pit interruptee against interruptor in this way. Instead, having redirected the course of the conversation, the interruptor appears to be content to let the interruptee speak (as in example 7)).
3.2.2. Rapport type interruptions Rapport type interruptions are characteristically less face-threatening than power type interruptions. In fact, rapport interruptions often strive to bolster the interruptee's positive face.
J.A. Gotdberg / lmerrupt#~g the discourse
894
Rapport interruptions encourage and contribute to the developmen~ of the (speaker's) talk by inserting (short) informative or evaluative comments or by requesting the speaker to supply evaluative or informativ." remarks (~ee examples 1 3 - 1 5 ) . Well, ah- 48's[-pretty hard isn't it? B • [.Very hard. B" VERY. Well, I rA • [I took it last semester andand dropped it cause | didn't like the guy, = B : = Did you have Wagner? A" Yeah. [Wagner. B • [.Wasn t he a pain? A • I couldn't[stand[him. B • [.I [.I couldn't believe that. A : No[multiple choice tests. B : [I STRUggledB • I struggled, like, I was[like A • [I was gettin D's[and F's. B • [ I walked in- So was I. I pulled off the final. I don't know how I did it. I pulled a C[and, = A • [Really? B : = and said that's fine cause- I didn't wanna take it over. A: Really? A : OH, YEAH.
(13)
A •
(SM: SCA) (14) D :
)
P:
D"
(15) G : P:
Well, we just had a baby, did- didja know? (.) i~'s kinda funny because everyone asks me 'How's the baby?' and (.) there's not a whole lot to say cause she doesn't talk (.) and (.) she doesn't move very much, except like this ((demonstrates)) [ and[Is she joyful, or is she kind of a sad type? I keep telling the same storyYeah, she's very (.) She's smiling a lot now and laughing ... (DA: 12:11 (#31 P-l:05)) [story] Did that just happen?
J.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
G: P:=
S: G:
895
It happened in December (.) I was ju:::st hysterical. He = You're kidding! You mean after you got to scrhool? [Where wa::s he a professor'? Oxford. (.) An' he was parTICularly attracted to young women ((l:.ughs)). And he had this ... (Page: Office)
In either case, the interruptor's contribution is hearable as a cooperative gesture sharing the speaker's wants regarding the success of the speakerinitiated topic, issues or goals (Houtkoop and Mazeland (1985), Tannen (1981a, b)). Together the (interrupted) speaker and (interrupting) listener develop a common topic, displaying as they do so their joint enthusiasm for, involvement with, or understanding of the other and the issues or goals at hand (as in examples 16 and 17). (16) P : T: P: T:
What I've been doing is cutting down on my sleep. Oyh. ((sighs)) And I've been (.) and lrsLI do that too but it's painful = (Tannen, 1981a: 13)
(17) P :
[story] And she jus- you know (.) she just completely reversed the whole situation (.) In a sense it was interesting, but in another sense i[tI wasdon't know if you can have two (.) two: (.) I mean things get different when both parties play the ga:me. Yeah. [*Note: Here, P has the option to retrieve or transfer control of the topic.] (Page: Office)
S : *p:
Occasionally, the nature of the listener's questions or comments may alter the specific course and content of the talk. These interruptions involve slight shifts (rather than major changes) in topical focus or perspective - shifting from the speaker's displays, perceptions, accounts, or stories to those of the listener (i.e., different events/same themes). These shifts may be the listener's way of feeding back to the speaker his/her understanding of and continued interest in the discourse (as in examples 18 and 19).
8t;'6
J, A. Goldberg / b~terrupling the discourse D~
I was determined this ti~¢ I wasn't going to[quit.
[Oh,
E:
that's- (.) I guess that's what I felt Peggy was feeling. (DA: 14:12 (#72 E-2" 45)) (19) D : P: D: P:
... But that's her whole life, you know, that's (.) and she eats and shits andYeah,[my[.that's terrific, but I can'[t tell them about that I.M'--m'---my sister just had a baby. Well, I guess that was last March now... (DA: 12:11 (#31 P-l:05))
Some speakers may, nevertheless, feel threatened by such shifts in perspective, interpreting the listener's rapport acts as power ones designed to discount the speaker's presentation ~ unimportant, inconsequential or d~wnright uninteresting (see Tannen (1981a, b)). This feeling may be accentuated when the interruptor's comments come across as competitive or combative in tenor (as in examples 2v--23). In example 20, S's combative remarks dramatize her incredulity at anyone spending $139 on sheets, especially ones with holes in them. (20) S :
Yeah. With 6 sets that's 3 sheets =
M: = No=
S : = Okay, a pillowcaseM" = No.[Listen to meS • [.! want to know how you[spent $139 M" [Listen to me. There are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 sets. That's 6 uh 6 flat sheets, 6 ... (S/M: Telephone call)
3.2.2.1 Competitive interruptions. Competitive interruptions occupy the central portion of the power-rapport continuum. Although they tend to be rapport-oriented, these interruptions exhibit features of both: like rapporttype interruptions they stay on-topic; like power-type interruptions they address the speaker's negative face. Each party strives to get the other to acknowledge his/her own particular beliefs, accomplishments or experiences as being in some sense 'superior' to those of the other (see example 21).
J.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
(21) M:
M: S: M:
S" M: M:
897
As a matter of fact, I'm going to switch my optician not because of that. I'm switchin for another reason. Why? Well, first of all, he's very sarcastic andOh, well, if they've gotten- made so much money[maybe we can find ] [Well, wait a minute.] Somebody[that]uh so that, support =
tNoJ
Wait. Wait a minute. Wait. There's another guy. There's another young guy in town, and he's got cancer They're right across from my building S : M: Right, right. And I'm going to go to him = M: I-Slater? S " = [IS : I was thinking about that, too ... (S/M: Telephone call) This is also seen in example (22) where both students are engaged in a form of complaint one-upmanship. The students are both committed to the topic at hand and offer their remarks as a display of alignment and mutual understanding. Yet, each comes across as if her own personal experience and/or perspective is demonstrably 'better' than the other's. (22) B : G: B:=
For a start there was tha' on my bit there was the whole of that Kintsch book Right. (.) And this Collingwood = Look, I mean this this Kintsch this was my section. That is a whole book. (D. Good: Pre-tutorial)
Eventually, each reaffirms her rapport with the other. In (23) this reaffirmation is expediated through their interrupting of one another. (23) B :
G" G" B • G :
But you know I'm just so sort of (0.8) tired and fed up I, you know, I really feel like chucking things in sometimes an[so I[It is exactly. I mean I- I-[I can see why Chris is so ecstatic. [I m not surprised Chris= I mean he must be, y'know, in his third heaven. (D. Good: Pre-tutorial)
898
d.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
3.2.2.2. Teases. puns, quips and the like as interruptions. Teases and "oneliners' (such as puns, quips and banter) are probably the most difficult interruptions to place or classify along the power-rapport continuum. The reason for this power/rapport ambiguity is, in part, due to their conversational form. Teases and one-liners rely upon precision timing and sequential implicativeness for their success. Any form of prefacing, apology or tentativeness will destroy the impact achieved through this initial placement thereby contributing to the utterance's 'failure'. Consequently, these remarks must be produced forcefully, directly and with impunity. The interruptee must be induced to temporarily give way to the interruptor, creating space for the remark to be completed, noticed and 'heard' then and there, s Teases and the like are often perceived as face-threatening acts (Brown and Levinson (1987)) especially when they build off the speaker's (momentary) incompetence (as in example 24).
(24) B : J •
It begins with a 'D'. YOU know the stuff at the ends of chicken legs. Wh[at's it ca: lled? L! only eat chicken wings. (JG: BB: 2)
Although the interruptee may 'laugh' along with the interruptor, s/he may, nevertheless, still feel the threat to her/his face as well as the frustrations associated with being temporarily 'upstaged' by the other's witticism. Examples of this type of interruption are found in examples 25 and 26. (Example 26 poignantly illustrates K's frustrations.) (25) P :
What was the connection to the shift? (.) What was the connection? G: The connection wasS : = The connection was you ca: n't have a conversation with this (kind) around. G&S: ((laugh)) (Page: Office)
s In some cases, an interruptor may mitigate his/her power orientation or convey his/her rapport orientation by linguistically marking the interrupting utterance. By calling attention to the interruption's dispreferred status, the interruptor 'recognizes" the speaker's continued fight to the floor. The interruptor, in this way, provides the interrupted speaker with options (a form of nega'ive pofiteness) at the risk of not being able to complete his/her interrupting turn. Thus, in the following example, Y's hesitancy and apology for switching topics indicates her cognizance of the interruption's 'unwarranted' and potentially negative face-threatening status. X: = I was talking with E about that, y'know. A n [ d Y: LSorry to interrupt, but Moerman wrote this article on the connectedness of stories and how- (.) I was just watching the topic shift. (Page: Office)
J.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
(26) K" R" K
.
R" K"
ggO
No, they're women who'v devo[ded their l[They re women that hadda[bad love[life'n became nuns [their- [_THEIR LIFE.hh[heh hh! [their life, to uh (0.6) the devotion of the church. (GTS: Jefferson and Schegloff: 1975)
3.3. Rapport or power? It's all relative
As can be readily appreciated, since a major difference between power- and rapport-type interruptions is often a matter of degree rather than kind, each exchange must set its own parameters. There are no absolute evaluative criteria; that which is considered power in one case may be rapport in another (see Bennett (!981)). This may account for why the interactants' intentions and perceptions may fail to coincide. 6 This is especially true for those power/rapport readings obtained from the central portion of the continuum. Nevertheless, for any given exchange, power-oriented interruptions are relatively more face-threatening - threatening both the speaker's positive and negative face wants - by sharing fewer (if any) topical ties with the interrupted utterance than do rapport-oriented interruptions. These major differences are summarized in figure 2 below. HI POWER
marked utterance" + complete utterance + self focus/interest other focus/interest - topic coherence + content control 4- process control
LO POWER/RAPPORT
LO RAPPORT/POWER
_[.
m
4+ + weak 44-
4+ 4weak + 4.4-
-
-
HI RAPPORT
+ ± + +
marked utterance a complete utterance self focus/interest other focus/interest topic coherence content control 4- process control -
' Marked utterances are those containing such (para)linguistic features as hesitations, syllable repetitions, accounts, apologies, ant the like. Fig. 2. Characteristic features of the interrupting utterance along the power/rapport continuum. (The boxed area represents the ambiguous ~ntral portion along the continuum where power and rapport begin to merge.) 6 The response/reaction of the interrupted speaker to the interruption (found in the ongoing, interrupted turn and/or in the speaker's turn immediately following the interruption) serves to confirm or disconfirm, accept or reject, the interruptor's assessment of the propriety of his/her behavior.
900
J. A, (iohtherg ,' lnterrut~ting the dtscourse
4. Summary Throughout this paper, it has been argued that the traditional, a p r i o r L inlerpretation of interruptions as unequivocal signs of power, control or dominance is incorrect. Interruptions are a conversational phenomenon affected by many variables including the respective rights, obligations and wants of the speaker and listener; the personality traits of the speaker and listener; and their respective moods, relational dispositions and levels of topical involvement. The analyst's sensitivity to these factors will help avoid many of the problems associated with research on interruptions, viz. the spurious designation of personality and/or relational quality. Indeed, since 'fit would be a mistake ... to infer that each interruption event is a miniature battle for ascendency" (Meltzer et al. (1971: 392)), the purpose of this paper is to provide a rudimentary, first-order heuristic for getting at an interruption's type: as power, rapport, or neutral acts. It is important to note that the centrality and sanctity of a singular speakership code is but one of the codes governing the transfer of turns at talk. By designating interruptions as relatienal acts of neutrality, ~ower, or rapport it will, in future, be possible to get a more complete and accurate picture of the interpersonal nature and quality of an exchange. Interruptions are, after all, indicative of interpersonal relationships other than dominance.
Appendix
Transcription symbols
[ n
6) (1.5) CAPS
(no) (--)
sound is held onset of interruption or overlapped speech 'latching'; no interval between the end of a turn and the start of the next cut off speech; often a self-interruption micro-pause pauses in tenths of seconds stressed segment transcrioer is unsure of transcription unintelligible segment
Although this paper does not address these reactions, it is neverthelessimportant to note that responses/reactions which are repeatedly contrary to what is normatively expected may be suggestive of an established or emergent relational conflict, power imbalanceor control struggle• The interruptee's (repeated) challenges serve to redefine the other's view of the relationship: of each party's respectiveand joint rights, obligations,wants, and status/roles. Similarly,speakers or interruptors who acquiesce tog L'eadilyor who 'fight' when inappropriate to do so may be heard as conveyingtheir own insecuritiesor aggressiveness•
J.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
901
Transcripts Ex. # Transcript citation
Transfer source
(1)
Richard Frankel, Doctor-Patient Interviews Julia Goldberg, telephone call between two housewives, S&M
Frankel: D-P interviews
(2) (3) (ll) (20) (21) (4) (13) (5)
S/M: Telephone call
SM: SCA Page: Office
05) (17) (25) (6) (26) (8)
GTS: IV: 23(r): ST GTS: Jefferson and Schegloff: 1975 B.K. Crow: Topic Shifts: 1983
(9)
Isobel's house: Dinner
(lO)
Schiffrin, 1984: 321(6)
(12) (14) (18) (19) (16)
DA: 11:10 ( # 84 S-1:04) DA: 12:11 (#31 P-l:05) DA: 14:12 ( # 72 E-2:45) DA: 12:11 (#31 P-l:05) Tannen, 1981a: 13
(22) (23)
D. Good: Pre-tutorial
(24)
JG:BB:2
Sandra Metts, Students comparing accounts Judy Page, graduate students (2 female, 1 male) chatting in their office. Gall Jefferson, group therapy sessions Bryon K. Crow, topic shifts in couples' interactions Jufia Goldberg, conversation between 2 female friends over dinner at Isobel's house (recorded in England) Deborah Schiffrin, talk between a married couple, example cited in her article (1984, p. 321, ex. 6) David Alequire, examples cited in his paper (1978)
Deborah Tannen, conversation bet~een friends during Thanksgiving Dinner, example cited in her article (1981 a) David Good, 2 female students chatting before their tutorial session began (recorded in England) Julia Goldberg, conversation between a dating couple while playing tennis
References Agrawal, A., 1976. Who will speak next. Papers in Linguistic Analysis I: 58-71. Department of
Linguistics, University of Delhi (India).
9{)2
d. ,4. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
Alequire. David, 1978. Interruptions as turn-taking. Paper presented at Ninth World Congress of Sociology, Uppsala, Sweden. Arndt, Hans. n.d. Speech functions, cooperation, and competition in dialogue. Beattie, Geoffrey W., 1981. Interruption in conversational interaction and its relation to the sex and status of the interactants. Linguistics 19: 15-35. Beattie, Geoffrey, W., 1982. Turn-taking and interruption in political interviews: Margaret Thatcher and Jim Callaghan compared and contrasted. Semiotica 39(1/2): 93-113. Beckman, Howard B. and Richard M. Frankel, 1984. The effect of physician behavior on the collection of data. Annals of Internal Medicine 101(5): 692--696. Bennett, Adrian, 1981. Interruption and the interpretation of conversation. Discourse Processes 4: 171-188. Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson, 1987 [1978]. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York/London: Cambridge University Press. Butterworth, Brian, 1975. Hesitation and semantic planning in speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 1: 75-87, Dindia, Kathryn, 1987. The effects of sex of subject and sex of partner on interruptions. Human Communication Research 13: 345-371. Duncan, Starkey, Jr., 1972. Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. | ..... ! .,o,.,,~,~ of Personality and Social Psychology 23(2): 283-293. Edelsky, Carole, 1981. Who's got the floor? Language in Society 10(5): 383-421. Ervin-Tripp, Susan, 1979. 'Children's verbal turn-taking'. In: E. Ochs and B.B. Schieffelin, eds., Developmental pragmatics. London: Academic Press. pp. 391-414. Farina, Amerigo, 1960. Patterns of role dominance and conflict in parents of schizophrenic patients. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 61: 31-38. Ferguson, Nicola, 1977. Simultaneous speech, interruptions and dominance. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 16(4): 295-302. Folger, Joseph P. and Alan L. Sillars, 1978. The perceived dominance of conversational acts: Three reports on the validity of relational coding procedures. Ms., Cleveland State University (June). French, Peter and John Local, 1983. Turn-competitive incomings. Journal of Pragrnatics 7: 17-38. Gallois, Cynthia and Norman N. Markel, 1975. Turn taking: Social personality and conversational style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31:1134-1140. Goldberg, Julia A., 1984. 'A move toward describing conversational coherence'. In: R.T. Craig and K. Traey, eds.. Conversational coherence: Studies of form and strategy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. pp. 25-45. Goidberg, Julia A., 1987. Defining identities: The role of repair. (Submitted) Graham, Maudie L., 1985. An integrative framework for explaining simultaneous talk. Paper presented to the annual Speech Communication Association Convention, Denver, CO (November). Hetherington, E. Mavis, Roger J. Stouwie and Eugene H. Ridberg, 1971. Patterns of family interaction and child-rearing attitudes related to three dimensions of juvenile delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 78:160--176. Houtkoop, Hanneke and Harrie Mazeland, 1985. Turns and discourse units in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 595--619. Jacob, Theodore, 1974. Patterns of family conflict and dominance as a function of child age and social class. Developmental Psychology 10: 1-12. Jacob, Theodore, 1975. Family interaction in disturbed and normal families: A methodological and substantive review. Psychological Bulletin 82: 33--65. Jefferson, Gail, 1972. 'Side sequences'. In: D. Sudnow, ed., Studies in social interaction. New York/London: Macmillan. pp. 294--388. Jefferson, Gail and Emanuel Sehegloff, 1975. Sketch: Some orderly aspects of overlap in natural conversation. Paper presented to the American Anthropological Association (December).
J.A. Goldberg / Interrupting the discourse
903
Kennedy, Carol W. and Carl T. Camden, 1983. A new look at interruptions. Western Journal of Speech Communication 47(1): 45-58. Koliock, Peter, Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz, 1985. Sex and power in interaction. American Sociological Review 50: 34--46. Lakoff, Robin T., 1973. 'The logic of politeness; or, minding your p's and o's'. In: C. Corum, T.C. Smith-Stark and A. Weiser, eds., Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. pp. 292-305. Leffler, A., D. Gillespie and J.C. Conaty, 1980. Top dogs and space hngs: The effects of status differentiation on nonverbal behavior. Ms., Department of Sociology, University of Utah. Maltz, Daniel and Ruth Borker, 1982. 'Socialization and sex differences in speech interpretation'. In: J. Gumperz, ed., Language and social identity. New York/London: Cambridge University Press. pp. 195-216. Meltzer, Leo, William N. Morris and Donald Hayes, 1971. Interruption outcomes and vocal amplitude: Explorations in social psychophysics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 18(3): 392-402. Millar, Frank E. and L. Edna Rogers, 1980. Relational approach to discourse analysis: Emphasis on domineeringness and dominance. Paper presented to the International Communication Association Convention, Acap,lcn, Mexico tM~,,~ Mishler, Elliot G. and Nancy E. Waxier, 1968. Interaction in families: An experimental study of family processes and schizophrenia. New York: Wiley. Murray, Stephen O., 1985. Toward a model of members' methods for recognizing interruptions. Language in Society 13: 31-41. Murray, Stephen O., 1987. Power and solidarity in 'interruption': A critique of the Santa Barbara School conception and its application by Orcutt and Harvey (1985). Symbolic Interaction 10:101-110. Natale, Michael, Elliot Entin and Joseph Jaffe, 1979. Vocal interruptions in dyadic communication as a function of speech and social anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37: 865-878. Orcutt, James D. and Lynn Kenneth Harvey, 1985. Deviance, rule-breaking and male dominance in conversation. Symbolic Interaction 8: 15-32. Reisman, Karl, 1974. 'Contrapuntal conversations in an Antiguan village'. In: R. Bauman and J. Sherzer, eds., Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. New York/London: Cambridge University Press. pp. 110-124. Rim, Y., 1977. Personality variables and interruptions in small discussions. European Journal of Social Psychology 7(2): 247-251. Riskin, Jules M. and Elaine E. Faunce, 1972. An evaluative review of family interaction research. Family Process I 1 : 365-456. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson, 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696-735. Schegloff, Emanuel and Harvey Sacks, 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8: 283-327. Schiffrin, Deborah, 1984. Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society 13: 311-335. Tannen, Deborah, 1981a. New York Jewish conversational style. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 32: 133-149. Tannen, Deborah, 1981b. Talking New York: It's not what you say, it's the way you say it. New York Magazine (March 30): 30-33. Thomas, Jenny A., 1985 The language of power: Towards a dynamic pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 765-783. West, Candace, 1979. ',4 gainst our will: Male interruptions of females in cross-sex conversations'. In: J. Orasanu, M. Slater and L. Adler, eds., Language, sex and gender, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 327. pp. 81-97. Wilmot, William W., Donal Carbaugh, Betsy W. Bach and Connie A. Bullis, 1982. Interpersonal power in conflict: Self-reports and objective measures. Paper presented to the Western Speech Communication Association Convention, Denver, CO (February).